Coffee House Musings on Creationist Topic Proposals

Your words are already twisted and what you call a "position" is nothing but denial.By the way, the only reason I talk to a scum-sucking troll like you at all is the improve MY understanding. If I say something wrong, I expect to be corrected. That's how science works.And I have learned a few things in this thread.

Edited by ringo, : Added missong apostrophe.

You neglected to remove the footnote reference (6) from wherever you copy-pasted your answer. Try saying it in your own words.

More likely there's a glitch in you.For future reference, failing to provide a citation for a quote is a lesser offense than lying about it. The cover-up is often worse than the original crime. Ask Nixon.

And yet they don't. Actual YEC scientists, doing actual science, are Very few and very far between.Hypothetically, a flat-earther could go to the moon - but he'd have to use the actual science instead of the flat-earth nonsense. Similarly, a YEC could develop vaccines only by using actual science instead of YEC nonsense. Every one.No scientist needs to prove anything.You don't understand what knowledge is.

Insulin from cows and pigs. Why would their insulin work in us if we were not all related?

He "knows how it works" if he can use it to make things work. For example, if he understands common ancestry, the relatedness of all life, he can find alternative sources of insulin - e.g. our cousins the cows and pigs.Knowledge works.

No. We accuse him of being a troll because he ignores the responses to his trolling. He doesn't discuss; he just repeats his trolling.

French has separate words for knowing something (savoir) and knowing somebody (connaitre). I can know a lot about James Bond. That has nothing to do with whether or not he's real. That's because religion is lazy thinking. We invented science because religion doesn't provide reliable conclusions. Science is very rigorous in paring down those 100% claims.

To "know" means to be pretty sure. Science has to be careful to never be too sure of anything. The classic example is Newtonian mechanics, which works pretty well most of the time. But we now know that quantum mechanics works better in some situations. If we used your concept of "knowing", we would never have gotten past Newton. There are a lot of things you're unaware of. You work too hard at being unaware. It is neither misleading nor unorthodox. Understanding the word "know" is directly linked to understanding the word "knowledge". If you made more of an effort to understand and wasted less time pontificating, you wouldn't be such a dimwit. The law courts would work a lot better if they used a more practical meaning of "I know" and "I saw". A lot of people have been unjustly convicted because somebody "definitely saw" something - when they actually meant they were "pretty sure" of what they saw.

Exactly.

And the cover-up continues.

Incidentally, French has a third word for that, reconnaître. I suppose Spanish, German, etc. do too.I didn't read the rest of your quote. Stop doing that.

You don't know very far.But there wouldn't be anything in science about proof, would there? Because, y'know, science doesn't deal in proof.

You tell me. Since YECs claim to know so much more about science than scientists do, why don't YECs develop vaccines? Why don't YECs produce ANYTHING useful?

But if we were not related, why would it? If we were not related, why would we even THINK it would work? Why didn't YECs think of it?